I first came across the following article in the paper copy of The Aucklander in July 2007. I didn't have a blog or know what I really wanted to do with my skeptical brain at that point. Now I do and, quite by accident, I found it again.
However time hasn't eased my disbelief - reading the article again just makes me shake my head. I just can't believe it was published:
http://www.quitsmokingclinic.co.nz/aucklander-article.html
Although the article is old, it's still being linked to on an active website and it's an indication of the scientific illiteracy prevalent in New Zealand media. Heck, I'm a scientist and I ended up as a sports reporter.
But this piece of 'reporting' is perhaps the most credulous piece of nonsense I've ever had the misfortune to read. And given we've had to put up with credulous psychic"Sensing Murder" reports in the past that's saying something.
There are just so many warning signs in this story that as soon as I read it, I knew bioresonance therapy was bollocks. But being the good skeptic I did my research and - surprise, surprise - the websites I found which actually looked at the science said it was total bollocks.
Here are the things I picked up on as being signs something wasn't right, along with my thoughts in parenthesis:
"two electrically charged balls" (Hmmm. It'll be magnets next. Would I be surprised to find something about it affecting blood flow because of the iron in the blood)
"85 per cent success" (Holy shit. This has 85 per cent success rate and I've never heard of it before. I must try and find some proof for that.)
"rebalancing energies" (Oh oh. Woo! I'm pretty much convinced that it's bollocks.)
"bioresonance inverts energy patterns" (Does it? But even if it does, what the hell does it have to do with nicotine addiction?)
"it's about desensitising and detoxing your body" (Ah, detox. Bollocks)
"four energy quadrants" (Bingo!)
"the Bicom can determine the energy pattern from this post-hoik and sets about reversing it" (What the?)
"All this is doing is helping the body heal and rebalance itself by connecting to healthy frequencies." (Oh my flying spaghetti monster, he's serious.)
"the machine dignfies me with a microwave like ping to confirm my new status as a freshly rolled non-smoker" (Wow, how easy. This is either a scam or every smoker in New Zealand should get a free treatment. Sarcasm in my thoughts - I really must get out more)
"It's the toxins leaching out of your skin" (Oh, holy shit. No. Please not. This is the worst thing I've ever read.)
"their bathwater turns brown" (Perhaps they're covered in the bullshit you've just spoken and it's washed off.)
"I'm cured" (yeah, I wonder how you're doing now a little while after the story was written. I'd lay good odds that you still smoke.)
Now I'm not saying the author of this article lied. It's possible he really has been cured of smoking and puts it down to the bioresonance therapy. However, there is a much simpler explanation. This is a clear example of someone volunteering and therefore already willing to give up smoking. He's most of the way there.
The placebo effect of using a geeky, scientific-sounding therapy then kicks in and bingo, his own willingness to give up smoking mixed with some woo and he's given up smoking.
My biggest issue with the article is that the author failed to do the simplest of research about bioresonance. A Google search brings up Ben Goldacre's colum in the Guardian from 2005 on bioresonance bollocks. That should have been enough to set the alarm bells ringing.
But no. No research, no science and no amazing cure for smoking.
I just hope that no-one in New Zealand has read this article and paid $350 for a treatment. I'd just feel guilty for not having shouted my mouth off about it sooner.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
God skepticality
The different 'varieties' of skeptic is one of the community's biggest positives, but it's also an issue that will means we can never be totally united. That's just something us skeptics need to deal with.
Thankfully there are communities (and podcasts) like the Skeptics' Guide To The Universe and The Skeptic Zone which can unite us around those things we agree on - and an excellent job they do of it.
The biggest unknown, as I see it, is the question of whether god exists or not.
I don't really care if a skeptic is an atheist, an agnostic or a theist. Some have made it known, some keep it to themselves. That's fine.
But my atheism is a big part of my skepticism - in fact it was probably the first step in my conversion from belief in faked moon landings and conspiracy theories to a fully-fledged skeptic. So, like it or not, I'll be dealing with atheism as part of nz skeptic.
That said, I wanted to share a piece I wrote for AUT's student magazine 'debate' about 18 months ago. It's a piece about that national anthem of New Zealand, a song called "God Defend New Zealand".
I think it's a good example of me using a bit of humour to make a serious point. Don't worry - I won't be regurgitating often - a new post will be up tomorrow!
God Offend New Zealand
Bertrand Russell, famous British philosopher, once wrote, "If I were granted omnipotence, and millions of years to experiment in, I should not think Man much to boast of as the final results of all my efforts".
I get up in the morning, take a long look in the mirror and find myself agreeing with Russell. Each sag of fat reinforces the fact that an allegedly benevolent being didn't exactly give me a body I should be particularly thankful for.
Now it's not simply my pudgy body that leads me to the conclusion there's no God. Years of studying science, rational and skeptical thinking, and a family who let me make up my own mind, all pointed me to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.
Instead of sitting on the fence and getting splinters in my arse and calling myself agnostic, I came out of the closet. I am an atheist.
Now before some of you send me e-mails telling me I'm going to Hell, I'd like to state I'm not anti-religion. In fact, I'm right at the front of the queue demanding people have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want to. Where I object is when it impinges upon other people.
New Zealand is rare in that it has two National Anthems with equal standing. However both contain multiple mentions of the word 'God'. 'God Save The Queen' (from what one may ask?) and 'God Defend New Zealand' by their very titles can reduce the feelings of national pride for non-religious people.
There are people, like Elizabeth McKenzie, President of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists, who refuse to sing because God is mentioned. What better way to fire up the All Blacks than by playing a song that may draw feelings of apathy, or even anger, from a large proportion of the crowd?
The 2006 census showed 1.297 million people (or 31 per cent of total respondents) had no religious affilliation, creating by far the largest 'religion' in New Zealand. The next biggest religions are Anglican (13 per cent) and Catholicism (12 per cent).
Given the (righteous) moves to ensure that even the smallest minority has proper representation and aren't discriminated against, isn't it rather ironic that 31 per cent of the country is ignored by the official national songs? And at the same time it can be hardly claimed that the current anthems properly represents the 124 religions in New Zealand either.
Is asking the crowd to sing the national anthem at a rugby game discriminatory?
No, it's not, because people have the ability to ignore it, stick their fingers in their ears or make up their own words. But surely there are better ways to engage the population and not leave anyone out? New Zealand has some fantastic lyricists.
Wouldn't a Finn brothers' original song, or a Hone Tuwhare poem say much more about New Zealand and its people that a 19th Century dirge that has little relevance in the 21st Century?
I'm not writing this article to convert anyone. I'm not asking anyone to give up deeply held beliefs because someone you've never met says scientific consensus suggests it's highly unlikely God exists. I'm asking you to consider whether it's fair on almost one-third of the population to continue with songs that demand a religious outlook on life.
Perhaps I'm being a bit hard on Aotearoa. We're certainly not the worst country in the world when it comes to discriminating against atheists. We're nowhere near as bad as the United States, for example.
In a February 2007 Gallup poll only 45 per cent of US respondents said they would vote for an atheist for President. This was a whole 10 points behind the next least popular group - homosexuals. I think (or at least I hope) New Zealand wouldn't have such a problem with an atheist Prime Minister.
Now I don't want to be seen to be singling out religion. My skepticism and rationality isn't confined to that one topic. I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor (the simplest solution tends to be the best one). What's more likely? Someone turning over a page in the telephone book by psychic power or by blowing on it? A psychic getting in contact with dead people or using well-documented cold-reading techniques and probability to be reasonably accurate?
Now, before I start a rant about faked moon-landings, creationism, homeopathy and UFOs, I am going to put down my proverbial pen.
I'd like to leave the last words to the sadly missed Douglas Adams from the ever-popular 'Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.'
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," said Man, "The Babel Fish* is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exis, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't."
"Oh dear," says God. "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
Now, as I'm sure you'll be glad to read, I'm off to disappear in a puff of my own illogic.
*The Babel fish is an amazing species of fish that can translate any language into any other making it popular in the realms of inter-galactic hitchhiking.
Thankfully there are communities (and podcasts) like the Skeptics' Guide To The Universe and The Skeptic Zone which can unite us around those things we agree on - and an excellent job they do of it.
The biggest unknown, as I see it, is the question of whether god exists or not.
I don't really care if a skeptic is an atheist, an agnostic or a theist. Some have made it known, some keep it to themselves. That's fine.
But my atheism is a big part of my skepticism - in fact it was probably the first step in my conversion from belief in faked moon landings and conspiracy theories to a fully-fledged skeptic. So, like it or not, I'll be dealing with atheism as part of nz skeptic.
That said, I wanted to share a piece I wrote for AUT's student magazine 'debate' about 18 months ago. It's a piece about that national anthem of New Zealand, a song called "God Defend New Zealand".
I think it's a good example of me using a bit of humour to make a serious point. Don't worry - I won't be regurgitating often - a new post will be up tomorrow!
God Offend New Zealand
Bertrand Russell, famous British philosopher, once wrote, "If I were granted omnipotence, and millions of years to experiment in, I should not think Man much to boast of as the final results of all my efforts".
I get up in the morning, take a long look in the mirror and find myself agreeing with Russell. Each sag of fat reinforces the fact that an allegedly benevolent being didn't exactly give me a body I should be particularly thankful for.
Now it's not simply my pudgy body that leads me to the conclusion there's no God. Years of studying science, rational and skeptical thinking, and a family who let me make up my own mind, all pointed me to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.
Instead of sitting on the fence and getting splinters in my arse and calling myself agnostic, I came out of the closet. I am an atheist.
Now before some of you send me e-mails telling me I'm going to Hell, I'd like to state I'm not anti-religion. In fact, I'm right at the front of the queue demanding people have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want to. Where I object is when it impinges upon other people.
New Zealand is rare in that it has two National Anthems with equal standing. However both contain multiple mentions of the word 'God'. 'God Save The Queen' (from what one may ask?) and 'God Defend New Zealand' by their very titles can reduce the feelings of national pride for non-religious people.
There are people, like Elizabeth McKenzie, President of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists, who refuse to sing because God is mentioned. What better way to fire up the All Blacks than by playing a song that may draw feelings of apathy, or even anger, from a large proportion of the crowd?
The 2006 census showed 1.297 million people (or 31 per cent of total respondents) had no religious affilliation, creating by far the largest 'religion' in New Zealand. The next biggest religions are Anglican (13 per cent) and Catholicism (12 per cent).
Given the (righteous) moves to ensure that even the smallest minority has proper representation and aren't discriminated against, isn't it rather ironic that 31 per cent of the country is ignored by the official national songs? And at the same time it can be hardly claimed that the current anthems properly represents the 124 religions in New Zealand either.
Is asking the crowd to sing the national anthem at a rugby game discriminatory?
No, it's not, because people have the ability to ignore it, stick their fingers in their ears or make up their own words. But surely there are better ways to engage the population and not leave anyone out? New Zealand has some fantastic lyricists.
Wouldn't a Finn brothers' original song, or a Hone Tuwhare poem say much more about New Zealand and its people that a 19th Century dirge that has little relevance in the 21st Century?
I'm not writing this article to convert anyone. I'm not asking anyone to give up deeply held beliefs because someone you've never met says scientific consensus suggests it's highly unlikely God exists. I'm asking you to consider whether it's fair on almost one-third of the population to continue with songs that demand a religious outlook on life.
Perhaps I'm being a bit hard on Aotearoa. We're certainly not the worst country in the world when it comes to discriminating against atheists. We're nowhere near as bad as the United States, for example.
In a February 2007 Gallup poll only 45 per cent of US respondents said they would vote for an atheist for President. This was a whole 10 points behind the next least popular group - homosexuals. I think (or at least I hope) New Zealand wouldn't have such a problem with an atheist Prime Minister.
Now I don't want to be seen to be singling out religion. My skepticism and rationality isn't confined to that one topic. I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor (the simplest solution tends to be the best one). What's more likely? Someone turning over a page in the telephone book by psychic power or by blowing on it? A psychic getting in contact with dead people or using well-documented cold-reading techniques and probability to be reasonably accurate?
Now, before I start a rant about faked moon-landings, creationism, homeopathy and UFOs, I am going to put down my proverbial pen.
I'd like to leave the last words to the sadly missed Douglas Adams from the ever-popular 'Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.'
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," said Man, "The Babel Fish* is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exis, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't."
"Oh dear," says God. "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
Now, as I'm sure you'll be glad to read, I'm off to disappear in a puff of my own illogic.
*The Babel fish is an amazing species of fish that can translate any language into any other making it popular in the realms of inter-galactic hitchhiking.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Gingko biloba and more about me
Despite my first two substantive posts being about aspects of complementary medicine (and more specifically extracts and supplements) this won't be the primary focus of the blog. Later today I'll post my thoughts on television show 'The Mentalist' as well as typing up something I wrote for AUT's 'debate' magazine when I was studying for a graduate diploma in journalism.
Your view of my specific brand of skepticism should be developing so, to help you along, here's some personal background related to Gingko biloba.
Based on the opening paragraph you may have deduced I'm a journalist. Well I am, of sorts. I work on a New Zealand website updating just about everything but with a focus on sports. I also write match reports and other stories for the website as well as maintaining a sports blog.
But before I landed my dream job I was a scientist, specifically a laboratory manager. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry in my native Scotland and then briefly in New Zealand before heading to the health food and supplement industry.
Without going too much into the details (which will surely, as they say, come out in the wash at some point) my experience there only increased my growing skepticism in both the efficacy and standards of manufacture of a majority of supplements.
This wasn't solely related to the single company I worked for, but based on talking with other people at industry events and my experiences in the pharmaceutical industry.
In any case, to cut a long story short, I had had enough of science as a career. I was doing very little day-to-day science, and I got to the stage where I found myself hating the fact I was working for a company which I came to believe made unethical decisions when it suited the bottom line.
So I left. I packed up and went back to university to become a journalist - and in doing so found I wasn't too bad at writing rugby and basketball match reports and being free from the daily drudgery of 'science' actually reignited the passion I first had when I was doing experiments in the school laboratory.
That said, on to Gingko biloba...
Gingko is widely sold in New Zealand, usually as a memory aide.
But the science behind Gingko isn't exactly compelling. In fact the latest information seems to show it has little efficacy.
However, instead of writing all of the details, I'm simply going to point you in the direction of Dr Steven Novella's excellent Neurologica Blog, and specifically his entry on Gingko and it's ability to help dementia. His conclusion? You'll have to click through and read it for yourself, but don't be too surprised!
At this point, it's worth saying I'm a huge fan of Dr Novella and will surely link to him in the future. He is a shining light in the skeptical community. To be honest, I don't know how he does it. He has a family and career yet still finds the time to write for a multitude of blogs and host the world's best podcast, The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe.
I hope one day I can meet Dr Novella and the rest of the skeptical rogues and pass on my gratitude for the enlightenment they provide to a huge number of people.
Back to the subject in hand. . .
My thoughts on the majority of life is that you should be able to do what you want as long as it doesn't impinge on others. If someone wants to buy a Gingko biloba supplement because they believe it helps, then that's fine. (My interest then becomes ensuring they get what they pay for and understand exactly what they're taking.)
Hopefully a few people will read and absorb the latest information on Gingko and make an informed decision as to whether to continue to take the supplement. A man can dream, can't he?
Your view of my specific brand of skepticism should be developing so, to help you along, here's some personal background related to Gingko biloba.
Based on the opening paragraph you may have deduced I'm a journalist. Well I am, of sorts. I work on a New Zealand website updating just about everything but with a focus on sports. I also write match reports and other stories for the website as well as maintaining a sports blog.
But before I landed my dream job I was a scientist, specifically a laboratory manager. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry in my native Scotland and then briefly in New Zealand before heading to the health food and supplement industry.
Without going too much into the details (which will surely, as they say, come out in the wash at some point) my experience there only increased my growing skepticism in both the efficacy and standards of manufacture of a majority of supplements.
This wasn't solely related to the single company I worked for, but based on talking with other people at industry events and my experiences in the pharmaceutical industry.
In any case, to cut a long story short, I had had enough of science as a career. I was doing very little day-to-day science, and I got to the stage where I found myself hating the fact I was working for a company which I came to believe made unethical decisions when it suited the bottom line.
So I left. I packed up and went back to university to become a journalist - and in doing so found I wasn't too bad at writing rugby and basketball match reports and being free from the daily drudgery of 'science' actually reignited the passion I first had when I was doing experiments in the school laboratory.
That said, on to Gingko biloba...
Gingko is widely sold in New Zealand, usually as a memory aide.
But the science behind Gingko isn't exactly compelling. In fact the latest information seems to show it has little efficacy.
However, instead of writing all of the details, I'm simply going to point you in the direction of Dr Steven Novella's excellent Neurologica Blog, and specifically his entry on Gingko and it's ability to help dementia. His conclusion? You'll have to click through and read it for yourself, but don't be too surprised!
At this point, it's worth saying I'm a huge fan of Dr Novella and will surely link to him in the future. He is a shining light in the skeptical community. To be honest, I don't know how he does it. He has a family and career yet still finds the time to write for a multitude of blogs and host the world's best podcast, The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe.
I hope one day I can meet Dr Novella and the rest of the skeptical rogues and pass on my gratitude for the enlightenment they provide to a huge number of people.
Back to the subject in hand. . .
My thoughts on the majority of life is that you should be able to do what you want as long as it doesn't impinge on others. If someone wants to buy a Gingko biloba supplement because they believe it helps, then that's fine. (My interest then becomes ensuring they get what they pay for and understand exactly what they're taking.)
Hopefully a few people will read and absorb the latest information on Gingko and make an informed decision as to whether to continue to take the supplement. A man can dream, can't he?
Monday, November 24, 2008
Hoodia gum - a weight-loss wonder?
Apologies - this was supposed to have been posted yesterday, but two hours of sleep on Sunday night (Thanks Kiwis and All Blacks) put paid to a few plans.
I'm always suspicious of flyers left under the car windscreen. They're usually advertising cheap rug sales or wanting me to start a new part-time business to earn b1g D0ll4r$.
Usually the kids get them and they end up in bits on the back floor. But not on Saturday.
After a tortuous 45 minute grocery shop with the kids in tow, I was met with a folded A4 colour printed advertisement for Hoodia Gum, a 'medically proven weight-loss wonder!'.
Being a little on the large side, I'm always interested in losing weight without having to actually exercise and cut out eating of crisps and chocolate.
But, as the vast majority of us know, there's no magic bullet that's going to cause the weight to drop off. So with my skeptical-sense tingling I went for an exploration of the internet and the amazing plant that was the ingredient in the wonderous chewing gum, Hoodia gordonii.
So what did I find? Well, pretty much what I expected for a product promising the earth - lots of adverts and sites wanting to sell it to me and not a lot of information on peer-reviewed studies showing the stuff actually does what it's supposed to.
First up, the scientific studies on the traditional South African plant are sparse. Well, when I say sparse there appears to be one published study on rats, an "efficacy" study on seven people and one double-blind study undertaken by a company who manufacture Hoodia products which showed people taking the active ingredient (P57) consumed an average of 1000 calories less per day than those not taking it.
The real lack of clinical data and a single study (which may or may not have been peer reviewed as I haven't found the study online) is hardly convincing for a so-called weight-loss wonder. . .
I'm not going to go into too much further detail here (because as good skeptics you should do your own digging and reading on this) - but some other things I found disturbing about the product was the sheer amount of competing information the different manufacturers/sellers provided (like how quickly the product was effective, how much to take, how their product was the best because it contained certified Hoodia gordonii).
Here are a selection of the sites I visited (but obviously not all):
Slimfast Hoodia
Hoodia diet-pills
Hoodia Advice
Hoodia gordonii's Wikipedia entry
These are provided for illustrative effect and all (and many more dealing with Hoodia) are available through Google.
The fact that so many of the sites I visited were keen to point out the huge number of forgeries available on the internet also set alarm bells ringing - apparently there's just not enough Hoodia gordonii available to provide for the amount of products on the market.
Most also referenced a handful of media 'appearances' of Hoodia - mainly CBS's 60 minutes, the story of a BBC reporter (who ate a banana-sized piece of the plant, not a supplement) and an appearance in Oprah Winfrey's 'O' magazine. Wikipedia has a few more references, but those three tend to be the most popularly cited and all are a number of years old.
(Were this plant truly the answer to the world's obesity problem, is it too much to expect to see some recent information?)
While all of these may be interesting, again there is very little science there. When the majority of the advertising is centred on personal testimonials, you have to question whether the science supports what's been stated.
Now let's look at the Hoodia gum in the advert I received. The website I was directed to says the gum contains 120mg of 'pure Hoodia'. First up, that doesn't fill me with confidence especially as most products on the internet seem to indicate they contain more than this.
The flyer also claims that 'its benefits have been proven through the strict testing methods of western medicine'. For thit to be true I'd need to see some peer-reviewed double-blind studies showing some statistical significance - and as I wrote above, this just isn't the case.
So the conclusion? Hoodia gordonii, or to be precise it's active ingredient, may have some appetite suppression affect.
Exactly how much of the active ingredient this gum supplies is unknown and can't be deduced based on the information supplied. And with the lack of clinical study information freely available, a direct comparison of amount required to show any appetite suppresant effect versus amount supplied is impossible.
That, alongside the exaggerated claims, the warnings of fake Hoodia proliferation and the lack of reputable brands means I'll be avoiding Hoodia gordonii in any of its forms in my quest for the perfect body. I recommend you do too.
Note: I spent approximately 3 hours visiting and reading websites on Hoodia based on internet searches. I just don't have time to review all the information provided so I zeroed on the commonalities and differences I could find.
It goes without saying that, like all good skeptics, I would be prepared to re-evaluate my position based on scientific evidence if someone can point me in the right direction.
I'm always suspicious of flyers left under the car windscreen. They're usually advertising cheap rug sales or wanting me to start a new part-time business to earn b1g D0ll4r$.
Usually the kids get them and they end up in bits on the back floor. But not on Saturday.
After a tortuous 45 minute grocery shop with the kids in tow, I was met with a folded A4 colour printed advertisement for Hoodia Gum, a 'medically proven weight-loss wonder!'.
Being a little on the large side, I'm always interested in losing weight without having to actually exercise and cut out eating of crisps and chocolate.
But, as the vast majority of us know, there's no magic bullet that's going to cause the weight to drop off. So with my skeptical-sense tingling I went for an exploration of the internet and the amazing plant that was the ingredient in the wonderous chewing gum, Hoodia gordonii.
So what did I find? Well, pretty much what I expected for a product promising the earth - lots of adverts and sites wanting to sell it to me and not a lot of information on peer-reviewed studies showing the stuff actually does what it's supposed to.
First up, the scientific studies on the traditional South African plant are sparse. Well, when I say sparse there appears to be one published study on rats, an "efficacy" study on seven people and one double-blind study undertaken by a company who manufacture Hoodia products which showed people taking the active ingredient (P57) consumed an average of 1000 calories less per day than those not taking it.
The real lack of clinical data and a single study (which may or may not have been peer reviewed as I haven't found the study online) is hardly convincing for a so-called weight-loss wonder. . .
I'm not going to go into too much further detail here (because as good skeptics you should do your own digging and reading on this) - but some other things I found disturbing about the product was the sheer amount of competing information the different manufacturers/sellers provided (like how quickly the product was effective, how much to take, how their product was the best because it contained certified Hoodia gordonii).
Here are a selection of the sites I visited (but obviously not all):
Slimfast Hoodia
Hoodia diet-pills
Hoodia Advice
Hoodia gordonii's Wikipedia entry
These are provided for illustrative effect and all (and many more dealing with Hoodia) are available through Google.
The fact that so many of the sites I visited were keen to point out the huge number of forgeries available on the internet also set alarm bells ringing - apparently there's just not enough Hoodia gordonii available to provide for the amount of products on the market.
Most also referenced a handful of media 'appearances' of Hoodia - mainly CBS's 60 minutes, the story of a BBC reporter (who ate a banana-sized piece of the plant, not a supplement) and an appearance in Oprah Winfrey's 'O' magazine. Wikipedia has a few more references, but those three tend to be the most popularly cited and all are a number of years old.
(Were this plant truly the answer to the world's obesity problem, is it too much to expect to see some recent information?)
While all of these may be interesting, again there is very little science there. When the majority of the advertising is centred on personal testimonials, you have to question whether the science supports what's been stated.
Now let's look at the Hoodia gum in the advert I received. The website I was directed to says the gum contains 120mg of 'pure Hoodia'. First up, that doesn't fill me with confidence especially as most products on the internet seem to indicate they contain more than this.
The flyer also claims that 'its benefits have been proven through the strict testing methods of western medicine'. For thit to be true I'd need to see some peer-reviewed double-blind studies showing some statistical significance - and as I wrote above, this just isn't the case.
So the conclusion? Hoodia gordonii, or to be precise it's active ingredient, may have some appetite suppression affect.
Exactly how much of the active ingredient this gum supplies is unknown and can't be deduced based on the information supplied. And with the lack of clinical study information freely available, a direct comparison of amount required to show any appetite suppresant effect versus amount supplied is impossible.
That, alongside the exaggerated claims, the warnings of fake Hoodia proliferation and the lack of reputable brands means I'll be avoiding Hoodia gordonii in any of its forms in my quest for the perfect body. I recommend you do too.
Note: I spent approximately 3 hours visiting and reading websites on Hoodia based on internet searches. I just don't have time to review all the information provided so I zeroed on the commonalities and differences I could find.
It goes without saying that, like all good skeptics, I would be prepared to re-evaluate my position based on scientific evidence if someone can point me in the right direction.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
nz skeptic open for business
This blog has been a long time in preparation.
It started as being part of a personal blog, but I quickly realised the subject was too important to deal with as a small part of that kind of blog and it died quickly.
But every time I read a story about the phony psychics of 'Sensing Murder' (or 'Sensing Bullshit' as the wonderful Jeremy Wells calls it), the latest cancer-curing vitamin product or how wonderful homeopathy is in the New Zealand press I cringe because I'm just letting it go by without comment.
So as well as picking up on international skeptical news (courtesy of my favourite skeptical outlets, The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe, The James Randi Educational Foundation, Skepchick, Science Based Medicine, Pharyngula, Bad Astronomy, NeuroLogica Blog, Skepticblog, The Skeptic Zone) I'll be looking at what's happening in Aotearoa and what's being reported in our press.
My desire isn't necessarily to convert anyone to my way of thinking - all I want to do is ensure people have as much information as possible so they can make well-informed decisions.
Throughout this blog's lifetime I'll be sharing more personal information about myself as and when it pertains to the skeptical subject at hand, but if you do a Google search on me you'll be able to find out more about me should you wish.
My first post of substance will be up tomorrow and I'll be having a look at the so-called 'weight-loss wonder' Hoodia gordonii.
It started as being part of a personal blog, but I quickly realised the subject was too important to deal with as a small part of that kind of blog and it died quickly.
But every time I read a story about the phony psychics of 'Sensing Murder' (or 'Sensing Bullshit' as the wonderful Jeremy Wells calls it), the latest cancer-curing vitamin product or how wonderful homeopathy is in the New Zealand press I cringe because I'm just letting it go by without comment.
So as well as picking up on international skeptical news (courtesy of my favourite skeptical outlets, The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe, The James Randi Educational Foundation, Skepchick, Science Based Medicine, Pharyngula, Bad Astronomy, NeuroLogica Blog, Skepticblog, The Skeptic Zone) I'll be looking at what's happening in Aotearoa and what's being reported in our press.
My desire isn't necessarily to convert anyone to my way of thinking - all I want to do is ensure people have as much information as possible so they can make well-informed decisions.
Throughout this blog's lifetime I'll be sharing more personal information about myself as and when it pertains to the skeptical subject at hand, but if you do a Google search on me you'll be able to find out more about me should you wish.
My first post of substance will be up tomorrow and I'll be having a look at the so-called 'weight-loss wonder' Hoodia gordonii.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)